Back
BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NAGPUR
Kalyani S. Kapse, Presiding Member and Shaila D. Wandhare, Member
Jaswinder Singh – Complainant
versus
Reliance General Insurance and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.18 of 95
Decided on 31.7.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Aniket Sawal, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties Nos.1 to 3:Mrs. Dehadrai, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence – It is crystal clear that two ignition keys and two door keys with the driver of the truck – Thus, there is no negligent on the part of the driver as both the keys are not left out inside the truck.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47 – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Deficiency of Service – Unfortunately truck was stolen and FIR was lodged on 03/04/2013, statement was recorded and insurance company registered theft claim. Later on letter was issued by insurance company and asked for two requirement i.e. driving licence and key pair. Eventually complainant answer this letter with clarification. It is crystal clear that two ignition keys and two door keys with the driver of the truck – Thus, there is no negligent on the part of the driver as both the keys are not left out inside the truck. Truck was stolen. In the particular facts and circumstances of the present consumer complaint – On facts, O.P. has indulged in deficiency in service by not fulfilling the theft claim of the Complainant and moreover when the premium was paid. It was genuine expectation of the complainant to get the insured sum but it was not fulfilled by the O.P – O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 has committed deficiency in service and also indulged in Unfair Trade Practice in term of Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [Paras 3 to 7]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Kalyani S. Kapse, Presiding Member.—Present complaint is made by the Complainant namely Jaswinder Singh Son of Lakhwinder Singh Virk, who is resident of Nagpur against the O.P.No.1 Reliance General Insurance Company through its Branch Manager Nagpur. O.P.No.2 is Reliance General Insurance Company through its Manager, Mumbai, O.P. No.3 is Reliance General Insurance through its Manager, Corporate office at Mumbai u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. (Herein after it is referred to in short as “The C.P. Act 1986.)
2. Brief facts of the present case is that the Complainant was the owner and in possession of Truck of TATA Company modal No. TATA LPT 3118 bearing registration No.MH/40-Y-8593, Engine No. 31K84130825 Chessis No. MAT466422D5P11216 and said Truck was purchased by the Complainant on 29/01/2014 and Truck was registered on 13/02/2014. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are the private limited company engaged in the business of insurance of all types for vehicles, accident, mediclaim, shop insurance and fire policy also. The complainant had insured his above mentioned truck with
the O.Ps. Company vide policy No. 1705732334002650 dt. 12/02/2014 for the period of one year i.e. till 11/02/2015 for annual premium of Rs.42,681/- and the sum insured was Rs.23,00,000/-.
3. On 03/04/2014 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen by an unidentified person and accordingly the complainant had filed FIR with Police Station Gittikhadan and the same was registered as Crime No.361/2014 under Section 379 of IPC dt.03/04/2014. After registering the above said complaint the statement was recorded and Final Report was issued. Therefore the complainant has filed the claim with the O.P.No.1 and all the relevant documents i.e. FIR, Truck papers etc. along with estimate were submitted. Thereafter Theft Claim bearing No. 2141116233 came to be registered by the O.P. company. Due to lack of any correspondence and non-settlement of the claim the Complainant was left with no other option but to issue legal notice to O.Ps. and thus the Legal Notice dt.20/08/2018 was issued to O.Ps. through the Complainant’s counsel Mr. A.T. Sawal. The above said legal notice has been duly served upon the O.Ps. but O.Ps. neither settle the claim of the Complainant nor have given any reply to the above said Legal Notice to the Complainant.
4. So the Complainant filed the present complaint for direction to O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 be jointly direct to pay to the Complainant, the Insurance Policy Claim Amount of Rs.23,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% on the said amount from 03/04/2014 To 03/09/2018 i.e. 52 months total amount of Rs.47,00,000/- till the date of realisation of the said amount. And also direct the Opponents No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- jointly to the Complainant towards the metal and physical agony suffered by him. Rs.25,000/- as cost of filing the complaint. And Rs.5,000/- towards Legal Notice charge.
5. Consumer Complaint was admitted by an Order dt. 03/10/2018 and notices were issued to O.P.Nos.1 to 3 to appear and file written version within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. Notices were duly served on 06/10/2018 and O.P. No.1, 2 have filed their written version on 19/11/2018. O.P.No. 3 adopts the same reply.
6. At the outset learned advocate for O.Ps. Mrs. Dehadrai has submitted that the present complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P. It is denied that on 03/04/2014 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and complainant filed FIR with police station Gittikhadan vide crime No.361/14 u/s 379 of IPC dt.03/04/2014. It is denied that after registering the FIR the statement was recorded and final report was issued. It is the matter on record that the complainant filed the claim with O.P. but it is denied that all the relevant docum
